DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 557 of 02-09-2014

Decided on 10-08-2015

Shaminder Singh Sohal, Advocate S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, aged 27/28 years;

Sherpal Kaur w/o Sh. Shaminder Singh Sohal, Advocate, aged about 27/28 years

- both R/o H. No. 23288, Street No. 16, Bhai Mati Dass Nagar, Bathinda.

…...Complainants

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch office, Jiwan Jyoti Bulding, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainants : Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for complainants.

For the opposite party : Sh. Inderjit Singh, counsel for OPs

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

This complaint has been filed by Shaminder Singh and another, complainants under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Life Insurance Corporation of India (here-in-after referred as “opposite party').

Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that they are permanent residents of Bathinda. The complainant No. 1 is the husband of complainant No. 2 and both the complainants have joint interest and same cause of action. The complainants requested for permission to file joint complaint. It is alleged that agent of opposite party contacted the complainants at Bathinda and allured them to purchase money-back life insurance with the pretext that in case of purchase of life insurance policy by complainants, for a sum of Rs. 2.00 Lacs for each complainant, they have to pay regular half yearly premium of Rs. 7701/- each. The life of both the complainants shall be assured for a sum of Rs. 2.00 Lacs. It was further allured that apart from the periodical payment, each of the complainant shall be entitled for about Rs. 10.00 Lacs. When the complainants inquired from the agent of the opposite party that they wanted the alleged assurance in writing, he conveyed that after submission of proposal form and payment of first premium, policy documents shall be issued to the complainants. The assurance was to be received by the complainants in writing vide the proposal policy documents which was to be received by the complainants within one month. On this allurement, the complainants gave their consent and paid first half yearly premium of Rs. 7701/- each. The agent of the opposite party obtained the signatures of the complainants on various blank forms/blank printed forms without explaining the contents thereof. The agent also issued two receipts on which policy No. 302492309 dated 12-5-14 and 302492320 dated 13-5-14, were mentioned, in the name of complainant No. 1 and 2 respectively.

It is alleged that complainants have not received policy documents and terms and conditions. The complainants further alleged that they have been continuously approaching the opposite party and his agent, but to no effect. The complainants felt some foul play on the part of the opposite party and its agent. They vide registered letter dated 22-07-2014 made a request to the opposite party conveying entire happening and non-receipt of policies and further to issue them policies alongwith alleged terms and conditions, but to the utter surprise of the complainants, instead of sending the policies, opposite party conveyed vide letter dated Nil that policy bonds have already been delivered as confirmed by their agent. The fact is that the complainants have not received the policy documents. The opposite party kept the complainants in dark and did not provide the complainants an opportunity to review the policy and its terms and conditions and deprived them to avail free look period.

It is further pleaded that due to this act and conduct, the complainants are not ready to continue with the alleged policies. They are entitled to the refund of amount of both the policies to the tune of Rs. 15,500/-. The complainants have also suffered mental tension, agony, loss of physical health for which they have claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 15,500/- and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, opposite party raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.

As per opposite parties, true facts are that complainant approached the opposite party and showed their readiness and willingness to purchase the insurance policies. Accordingly, the agent of the opposite party came to their house, who is living in the same locality. The complainants are very much known to him. After getting themselves aware about the terms and conditions of the policy, the proposal forms filled and signed by the complainants were submitted by them. Accordingly two LIC's New Money Back Plan (with profit) policies bearing No. 302492309 and 302492320 were issued in the name of the complainants respectively on 12-5-14 with plan and yearly against the aforesaid policies. Both the policy bonds which includes detailed terms and conditions of the policy, were delivered/handed over to the complainants by Mr. Darshan Singh, agent of the opposite party on 7th July, 2014 at their house. Free look period of the said policies has already completed. Therefore, the complainants were not entitled to cancel the policies as per terms and conditions. The complainants are estopped from filing the complaint by their own act, conduct, omission, commission and acquiescence. Further legal objections are that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. That there is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

On merits also, the opposite party reiterated its stand as set up in legal objections and detailed above and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit of Shaminder Singh (Ex. C-7), photocopies of premium receipts (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-3), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-4) and photocopies of letters (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavits of S P Singh dated 24-3-15, Rajesh Kumar dated 18-4-15 and Darshan Singh dated 18-4-2015 (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/3 respectively), photocopy of policy bond (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of proposal review slip (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of proposal form (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of policy bond (Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of proposal review slip (Ex. OP-1/8), photocopy of proposal form (Ex. OP-1/9), photocopy of policy issuing register (Ex. OP-1/10), photocopies of premium receipts (Ex. OP-1/11 & OP-1/12 , photocopies of letters (Ex. OP-1/13 to Ex. OP-1/15). Both the parties have also submitted written submissions.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.

Learned counsel for complainants has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainants that categorical stand of the complainants is that they have not received policies containing terms and conditions. As such, they are unable to avail option of free look period. When the complainants have alleged that they have not received the policies containing terms and conditions, the opposite party is required to prove by documentary evidence that complainants received the policies containing terms and conditions, but the opposite party has failed to discharge its duty. Of course the opposite party has tendered into evidence copy of despatch register Ex. OP-1/10, but this register does not prove that policies have been received by the complainants. No postal receipt has been produced. These policies are shown to be received by the agent of the opposite party. The delivery of policies to the agent cannot be termed as delivery of policies to the complainants. Therefore, even if the agent has received the policies, the terms and conditions cannot be binding upon the complainants until and unless they are delivered the polices. Thus, the opposite party is not justified to forfeit the premium amounts deposited by the complainants.

To support these submissions, learned counsel for the complainants cited decision passed by Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, chandigarh in First Appeal No. 631 of 2013 decided on 18-12-2014 in case titled Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and another Vs. Harpreet Kaur.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands. They have concealed true facts. The pleading of the complainants sufficiently proves that they have concocted false story. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party that in para No. 2 of the complaint, complainants have stated that they wanted the alleged assurance in writing, but the agent of the opposite party conveyed that after the submission of proposal form and payment of first premium, policy documents shall be issued. It is further pleaded that the agent of the opposite party obtained signatures of the complainants on various blank forms/blank printed forms without explaining the contents thereof. When on the one hand, complainants were demanding assurance in writing, it is highly unprovable and unbelievable that complainants would sign blank forms and printed forms at the instance of agent. This fact itself belies the version of the complainant.

The premium was paid on 12-5-14. This complaint has been filed on 2-9-14. If the policies were not issued to the complainants within one month, they were not to remain silent for a period more than four months. Moreover, the opposite parties have brought on record despatch register OP-1/10, which proves that policies were collected by Darshan Singh, agent of the opposite party, who is resident of the village of the complainants. Darshan Singh has also filed affidavit Ex. OP-1/3 wherein he has also deposed that policy bonds of both the policies were duly supplied and personally handed over to the complainants by him on 7-7-2014 at their house. Darshan Singh is from the village of the complainants. He is known to them. He was having no reason to falsely support the opposite party. Moreover, there is no rebuttal to this evidence. The affidavit of Darshan Singh is duly corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. entry in despatch register. Therefore, it is fully proved that complainants were supplied with the policies containing terms and conditions. The copies of policies brought on record as Ex. OP-1/4 and Ex. OP-1/7. Therefore, terms and conditions mentioned in the policies are binding upon the complainants.

We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

The controversy lies in very narrow compass. The only controversy is that whether the complainants were supplied with the policies containing terms and conditions. The categorical stand of the complainants is that they were not supplied with the polices containing terms and conditions. The opposite party has brought on record copy of despatch register containing details of the policies. As per opposite party, these policies were received by Darshan Singh for onward delivery to complainants. As per complainants, policies in question were purchased by them through agent of the opposite party but they had intentionally not mentioned the name of agent. Darshan Singh has tendered his affidavit Ex. OP-1/3 wherein he has deposed that he is agent of the opposite party and his agent code is 051559174. The premium receipts Ex. C-1 &Ex. C-2 produced by the complainants also show that they have paid the premium to the agent having agent code 05159174. Darshan Singh has further deposed that complainants are residing in the same locality where he is residing. He has also deposed that he delivered the policies to the complainants and personally handed over these to the complainants. Therefore, this affidavit of Darshan Singh corroborates the version of the opposite parties. Darshan Singhresident of the village of complainants. There is nothing to show that Darshan Singh was having any enmity with the complainants. Thus, the record produced by the opposite party is supported with the affidavit of Darshan Singh Ex. OP-1/3.

Thus, it is proved that policies in question were purchased by the complainants through agent of the opposite party. It is also proved that policies containing terms and conditions were personally handed over to the complainants by Darshan Singh. When it is proved that policies containing terms and conditioning were dully supplied to the complainants, they are bound by terms and conditions mentioned in the policies.

Admittedly, the complainants have not paid subsequent premiums. As such, as per terms and conditions of the policies, they are not entitled for refund of any premium. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced :

10-08-2015

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member